2011 Debaters League Discussion - NEW FORMAT NEEDS YOUR FEEDBACK!
- Thread starter D-Man
- Start date
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
I'm still down for this.
Judging is more of a PITA than anything. It's positive because the debates tend to become VERY interesting reads, especially from great competitors (i.e. Gelgarin, Tasty, Jos, myself
) but negative because it's so time consuming. So, if you love to read stuff, it's for you. If not, I'd suggest you don't do it.DirtyJosé;3756589 said:
A great help, as always, and much appreciated.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
I'd be interested in this.
I think the best way to do it is to imitate The World Cup somewhat. Group posters into leagues of 4, and do a round-robin, eliminating half the field. Then rank the remaining posters and run a single elimination tournament.
I think the best way to do it is to imitate The World Cup somewhat. Group posters into leagues of 4, and do a round-robin, eliminating half the field. Then rank the remaining posters and run a single elimination tournament.
Judging is more of a PITA than anything. It's positive because the debates tend to become VERY interesting reads, especially from great competitors (i.e. Gelgarin, Tasty, Jos, myself
A great help, as always, and much appreciated.
hmmm. Not sure how much time I will have to read every single post, moving in a month or two, may be without internet for a bit (I check Wrestlezone out every day at work, but I can't spend 8 hours a day, eventually someone will bust me, LOL) Maybe I will just watch.
As you wish.
A winner stays on, Countdown style structure is not going to work. I think it's a terrible structure for a whole host of reasons, but most of them are arguable, so I'll just stick with 'it's fundamentally impossible to run in a reasonable time period' and leave it at that.
That leaves you with three options that I can see. League, tournament or hybrid, all of which you've actually vetoed earlier in the thread.
A league would probably flop without TM (or similar lunatic) pushing it along; it would also still take a rather long time (24 competitors is still looking at around three months).
A tournament would work fine, would be the easiest thing to run and would take the least time (32 competitors could easyily be wrapped up in two months if the judges were up to it). On the down side... it's a bit shit. Most people would only get one chance to debate, drop outs would have a much bigger impact than with any other structure and luck of the draw would matter as much as talent when it comes to how far a person advances. It also forces you to give a bunch of people an unfair advantage via seeding or the be really snooty regrading how many people get to play. It's not the structure I would pick, but it would work.
Now if it were up to me, I'd go with a hybrid structure similar to the World Cup. A small handful of mini leagues (four players each) run for three weeks. This gives everyone three chances to debate, and also has the advantage of filtering out most of the no shows before it really matters (I hypothesise that most people who are going to drop out will do so in the early stages). Two people go through from each league, at which point you have a straight up knockout tournament. 32 competitors could be finished in a couple of months. It would be very hard on the judges early on, but I do have some ideas for how to remedy that problem; but it's probably best to get settled on a format first.
A winner stays on, Countdown style structure is not going to work. I think it's a terrible structure for a whole host of reasons, but most of them are arguable, so I'll just stick with 'it's fundamentally impossible to run in a reasonable time period' and leave it at that.
That leaves you with three options that I can see. League, tournament or hybrid, all of which you've actually vetoed earlier in the thread.
A league would probably flop without TM (or similar lunatic) pushing it along; it would also still take a rather long time (24 competitors is still looking at around three months).
A tournament would work fine, would be the easiest thing to run and would take the least time (32 competitors could easyily be wrapped up in two months if the judges were up to it). On the down side... it's a bit shit. Most people would only get one chance to debate, drop outs would have a much bigger impact than with any other structure and luck of the draw would matter as much as talent when it comes to how far a person advances. It also forces you to give a bunch of people an unfair advantage via seeding or the be really snooty regrading how many people get to play. It's not the structure I would pick, but it would work.
Now if it were up to me, I'd go with a hybrid structure similar to the World Cup. A small handful of mini leagues (four players each) run for three weeks. This gives everyone three chances to debate, and also has the advantage of filtering out most of the no shows before it really matters (I hypothesise that most people who are going to drop out will do so in the early stages). Two people go through from each league, at which point you have a straight up knockout tournament. 32 competitors could be finished in a couple of months. It would be very hard on the judges early on, but I do have some ideas for how to remedy that problem; but it's probably best to get settled on a format first.
With the World cup system, you get to debate three times before bowing out or staying in. That sounds pretty fair to me. As long as the competitors are put into pots, i.e. elite posters in one, regular debaters in one, newbies in another one and like... former champions in another one, we'll be fine.
Poop Master Flex
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I'm still up for this
Hulk Hogan's Brother
Stop asking me what I'm gonna do!!!
The World Cup format could work, especially if not too many posters are involved. However it will become increasingly similar to the previous format with a large number of posters. Judges might find it difficult to judge more than 6 groups at a time and having more than 4 posters in one group makes the group process time consuming.
However, I guess it is the best format available to crown the best debator in the least amount of time possible.
However, I guess it is the best format available to crown the best debator in the least amount of time possible.
Poop Master Flex
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I think the World Cup system is a good way to go definitely.
Divide all the users up into separate groups. Everyone debates with everyone in the group once, winners advance. When you are in the next round it goes to single elimination until there is 1 left standing.
If you want it done quick single elimination is the best route to go. Just make a tourny out of it. If there is an odd man out the reigning champ gets a bye.
Divide all the users up into separate groups. Everyone debates with everyone in the group once, winners advance. When you are in the next round it goes to single elimination until there is 1 left standing.
If you want it done quick single elimination is the best route to go. Just make a tourny out of it. If there is an odd man out the reigning champ gets a bye.
Hyorinmaru
Sit Upon The Frozen Heavens
i like it and want in
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
The issues as I see them:
1: "Seeding" or separation of posters based on some criteria or another. What a shit idea. How do you suppose, Rohan, to sort out the "elite" posters from the regular? Are we talking post counts? Length of membership on the forums? There's pretty much no way to way to do so that wouldn't be gross misrepresentation of the competitors. If it comes to being separated, I call for things to be done in a totally random way. In this way, if people want to bitch they can only bitch to fate. There will be no one "at fault".
2: Attendance. Someone (Gelgarin?) mentioned earlier that within a few weeks that no-shows will be sorted out. I don't think this is true either. In my experience, no-shows weren't just people who stopped caring rather quickly. No-shows were also people who had real life issues get in the way. People who committed without really thinking things through. This applies to judges and debaters. Look at Davi, for example; he was all ready to sign up as a judge even though him moving soon would most assuredly take away from his ability to be a good judge. Thankfully, that ended up coming out beforehand, but this isn't always the case.
3: The time involved. Asking someone to GUARANTEE that they can stick to this with the appropriate level of energy as either a judge or a poster for a handful of months is almost unfair. For this reason, I fully back a structure which allows for the quickest run from start to finish regardless of the sacrifices. I do like the sound of a straight up elimination tournament. I do not think would be bad to have so many eliminated in the first round; them's the breaks, you know? If people want to "debate", there's always non-spam. A "world cup" type run would be my second choice, but I don't think we really have or need the time to faff about before really getting things going. Bring your "A" game or GTFO.
1: "Seeding" or separation of posters based on some criteria or another. What a shit idea. How do you suppose, Rohan, to sort out the "elite" posters from the regular? Are we talking post counts? Length of membership on the forums? There's pretty much no way to way to do so that wouldn't be gross misrepresentation of the competitors. If it comes to being separated, I call for things to be done in a totally random way. In this way, if people want to bitch they can only bitch to fate. There will be no one "at fault".
2: Attendance. Someone (Gelgarin?) mentioned earlier that within a few weeks that no-shows will be sorted out. I don't think this is true either. In my experience, no-shows weren't just people who stopped caring rather quickly. No-shows were also people who had real life issues get in the way. People who committed without really thinking things through. This applies to judges and debaters. Look at Davi, for example; he was all ready to sign up as a judge even though him moving soon would most assuredly take away from his ability to be a good judge. Thankfully, that ended up coming out beforehand, but this isn't always the case.
3: The time involved. Asking someone to GUARANTEE that they can stick to this with the appropriate level of energy as either a judge or a poster for a handful of months is almost unfair. For this reason, I fully back a structure which allows for the quickest run from start to finish regardless of the sacrifices. I do like the sound of a straight up elimination tournament. I do not think would be bad to have so many eliminated in the first round; them's the breaks, you know? If people want to "debate", there's always non-spam. A "world cup" type run would be my second choice, but I don't think we really have or need the time to faff about before really getting things going. Bring your "A" game or GTFO.
The smart thing to do with a World Cup format would be the use different rules for the qualifiers and the tournament rounds.
For the group stages limit people to a simple point-counterpoint structure where players get one post to make their argument, and one post to address their opponent's. This will make things much easier on the judges, and more forgiving for the less experienced competitors.
Once you get to the knock out stages you should only have to top debaters left, and the training wheels can be removed allowing people to have the multi-quote wars that we have come to know and love. There'll be half as many debates happening, so it'll be much easier for the judges to handle.
For the group stages limit people to a simple point-counterpoint structure where players get one post to make their argument, and one post to address their opponent's. This will make things much easier on the judges, and more forgiving for the less experienced competitors.
Once you get to the knock out stages you should only have to top debaters left, and the training wheels can be removed allowing people to have the multi-quote wars that we have come to know and love. There'll be half as many debates happening, so it'll be much easier for the judges to handle.
I appreciate it.
Despite what other may or may not think, I really want to do this and it truly bothers me that I can't find a way to make it work.
Fair enough.
Thank you for understanding that it would take a "lunatic" to run it that way again.
What if we did a double-elimination style?
My only problem with this is that I'm completely unfamiliar with the World Cup Tournament. But that's not really a "problem".
I see your breakdown and it looks pretty good. Now, how would time constraints work? How many competitors can we start with? Is it limited to a specified amount of competitors to make the brackets even?
¡Roján!;3756642 said:
That's fine. Everyone should really get at least two chances to debate before being knocked out.
DirtyJosé;3756710 said:
The mods or the organizers would have to sort this out. With the base being the previous debates or the general quality of their posts. It's what happens in the Champions League, the best football competition on the planet. If you don't seed people, you could end up with 3 of the best debaters on here and one newbie who is just adjusting to the ropes. The guy has no chance. It promotes healthy competition and the ability to have an upset. It's much more entertaining than seeing three big shots slug it out in the opening round.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
groups of 4 do a round robin, eliminate half the pool. Remaining posters ranked in a single elimination bracket. If you have an uneven bracket, just give the top ranked posters a bye. That, of it you are only a couple posters shy of an even bracket, you can allow the the top remaining "eliminated" poster to come in at the bottom of the bracket.
Another way to even the brackets would be to do a triple threat debate for one or 2 of the early round matchups.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
¡Roján!;3756720 said:
Yes, but in football there are scores and stats to go by. There are no such things here, besides maybe rep totals. I just feel no sympathy for the "newbie". A "newbie" signing up for this should know that they are getting in line to debate others who feel that they are worthy of being called the best. I don't believe anyone should be getting their hand held through it. An "upset" to me is a "newbie" surprising everyone and pulling through a tough match. "Upset" is not a "newbie" doing well in a pool with other "newbies".
Also, separation into groups like this isn't needed in a straight up elimination style tournament, only in a "World Cup" style one. I've already made clear which one I prefer.
Then I think we'd all burn in the fifth circle of hell.
You're actually very flexible with regards to how many people can play. Sixteen or thirty-two would be ideal, but the structure could probably be tweaked to allow for almost any number of entrants (you can change the number of groups or have five players instead of four or whatever).
Five days per debate, two days to judge, slap a week off after the group stages to allow for judges falling behind. Whole thing should be done before the end of the season it started.
Tiger Chaos Theory
You ain't drawin' shit!
Seeing as I haven't participated previously I can't really give any ideas on how to run it or in what structure, but I would like to be included either by judging or giving it a shot myself if possible.
DirtyJosé;3756734 said:
Agreed, and then there is this: While there is a degree in learning how to debate, some people are just good at it. I don't know Gelgarin at all (and this just an example), but way back when, when he had a rep power of 1, because he was still new, was he any less of a skilled debater than he is now? Did his rep count go up because he is a good debater and people respected his opinions, or do people respect his opinions because of his rep count? We all started out as newbies at some point or another. If they feel capable of debating with the heavies on Wrestlezone, let them try. Most will sink...but some will swim.
DirtyJosé;3756734 said:
Stats could be more than rep. Such things as post count, date joined, and how the organizers feel about the participant can be put into consideration too.
See, you're mistaken here. I think you're getting pool and group mixed up. A newbie is not going to do well in a pool of newbies. The pool of newbies are going to be evenly shared out. Basically, a group of four would consist of one newbie, one regular, one good and one elite.
Similar threads
- Locked